The Truth Passes The Logo

Congrats to Paul Pierce for passing Jerry West for 21st all-time on scoring list.

Man, when you're passing names like West you know you're getting up there.




bob



.

bobheckler wrote:Congrats to Paul Pierce for passing Jerry West for 21st all-time on scoring list.

Man, when you're passing names like West you know you're getting up there.




bob



.

If West had the trey...................PP would still be trailing.
But If I had a million bucks I would not be sitting up on Tug Hill either

beat

More years and games for Pierce, but about 600 more shots for West (because he shot more often).  Both averaged 21.2 points per 36 minutes during the season.

But, in the clutch, it's a no-brainer:

Pierce has shot 42.2% and has scored 18.7 points per 36 minutes.

West shot 46.9% and scored 25.4 points per 36 minutes.

West was also an excellent defender.

Both played through injuries.

As for the better leader: It would be tough to pick one, although I'd go with West because he was a leader throughout his career, whereas Pierce became a better leader in the later stages of his career.

Sam

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

This can be looked at in more than one way. Without doing a lot of research I would guess that scoring was normally quite a bit higher back in the days that West played with less defense being played. With that said I have no doubt PP would have had a higher scoring average as well, not to mention with the much more sophisticated defenses today I would think Wests field goal percentage would go down some in todays game and and Pauls would have gone up during Jerry's time. I would think the Jerry had quite a bit better supporting cast throughout his career also.

I do not like to compare players from different eras because the games were played differently and not really the same playing field.

Being a leader is pretty subjective. This is really not measurable.

With this being said, I am not saying either player is better, just circumstances where different. Players don't routinely get 20-40 rebounds a a game today like they use to. Scoring is more difficult today than ever. I am sure someone on the board could tell us how many more points per game were scored during Jerrys day's compared to Pauls days in the league.

There are a lot of players in my opinion from Jerry's years in the league that would not have numbers anywhere near today what they were when they played then.

Anyway have a nice Thanksgiving.

Tardust

Biggest difference is the game was much more physical back then.

To say PP would have done better then or West would not done as well now is purely up to ones opinion, I happen to think with the pacification of the defenses today and the no touch hand check, West would have gone nuts in todays game.......and to add the trey? He might have scored 30 a game.

beat

Jerry West was made for today's game.  In an era when volume basketball and lower shooting percentages were in vogue, he shot at a relatively high percentage and shot particularly well for distance (while never being awarded a bonus point for all his long "makes").  He also enabled teammates despite primarily being a shooting guard, averaging 6.7 assists per game in his career (to 3.8 for Paul Pierce).

Yes, they did score more points back in West's day, but it was at the expense of having to play at an often withering pace. West averaged 39.2 minutes per game throughout his career to Pierce's 36.0 at a much slower pace.

Elgin Baylor was the only other star on most of Jerry's teams, although they had a number of good supporting players.  Late in his career, Wilt joined the Lakers, had his balloons burst, and helped produce the Laker's first one-season "dynasty."

By the way, it's a fallacy that playing with great teammates would have made West a better scorer.  The fact is that great teammates like Baylor and Wilt were more likely to "pirate" points that would otherwise have been available to Jerry.  That's why no Celtic has ever won the NBA scoring championship although there have been many Celtics who have had the ability to do so.  Paul Pierce fattened his scoring average in the nine years he played for the Celtics before the championship season.  In seven of those nine seasons, he scored at least 21 points per 36 minutes.  After KG and Ray arrived, Paul never scored that many points per 36 minutes again.

As a devout Celtics fan, in a big game, i'd take Jerry West on my team any time in any era.  Definitely my most respected Celtics foe.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Sam

tardust wrote:Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

This can be looked at in more than one way.  Without doing a lot of research I would guess that scoring was normally quite a bit higher back in the days that West played with less defense being played.  With that said I  have no doubt PP would have had a higher scoring average as well, not to mention with the much more sophisticated defenses today I would think Wests field goal percentage would go down some in todays game and and Pauls would have gone up during Jerry's time.    I would think the Jerry had quite a bit better supporting cast throughout his career also.

I do not like to compare players from different eras because the games were played differently and not really the same playing field.

Being a leader is pretty subjective.  This is really not measurable.

With this being said,  I am not saying either player is better,  just circumstances where different. Players don't routinely get 20-40 rebounds a a game today like they use to.  Scoring is more difficult today than ever. I am sure someone on the board could tell us how many more points per game were scored during Jerrys day's compared to Pauls days in the league.

There are a lot of players in my opinion from Jerry's years in the league that would not have numbers anywhere near today what they were when they played then.

Anyway have a nice Thanksgiving.

tardust

Here are the numbers that you were looking for. During the 14 years of West's career the league averaged 113.4 points per team per game. During Pierce's career it was 97.2 points per team per game. West averaged 24.8 points per 36 minutes and Pierce averaged 21.2 points per 36 minutes. When West's points per game for 36 minutes is adjusted to the lower points per game league averages of the Pierce years it just happens to end up at 21.1 points--exactly the same as Pierce's lifetime average for 36 minutes.

swish

Jerry West was without doubt the opponent most revered by the Russell-era Celtics.  Hell, even Johnny Most referred to him as "Gentleman Jerry."  You can bet that Johnny never called Magic "Magnificent Magic."

I've heard Russell say that Jerry West was a BETTER defensive player than an offensive player.  Pierce is capable of being a great defender.  But, unlike West, he did not take on the responsibility of being a great defender until later in his career.


There was a point when the Celtics wanted to unload Pierce, especially after that playoff game when he let the Pacers back in the game by foolishly committing a retaliatory foul after the play had ended.

No way, no how did the Lakers ever consider trading West.  And you can bet that West never let his temper get the best of him at a crucial moment in a playoff game.  

Pierce has just as much talent as West had but West used his talent better for more of his career.

Don't get me wrong.  I think Pierce is a great player.  But I would not rank him with Jerry West.

Couple weeks ago when Kobe passed Havlicek for the record for most field goals missed, the foolish commenter on ESPN (Skip Sayless) said Kobe was still on his list of top ten players of all time, specifically. number 10.

That got me speculating as to who actually were the top ten. My first reaction was, if Kobe is in the top ten, where does old Skip place Havlicek? He's got to go higher than Kobe: more rings, vastly better defense and leadership qualities, better-looking wife, etc.

Here's my list:

1. Russell
2. Chamberlain
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Jordan
6. Baylor
7. West
8. Pettit
9. Cousy
10. Havlicek

No Kareem, Olajuwon, Shaq, KG, Cowens, Big O, Debusshere - you could probably name another 10-20 before you got to Kobe or Pierce, but both West and Havlicek belong in the top ten, if I get a vote, as I obviously do since it's my list.

1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Jordan
4. Kareem/Wilt
5. Olajuwon
6. Magic
7. Duncan
8. Havlicek
9. West/Robertson
10. Garnett

I just edited this and replaced Barkley at 10 with KG because KG's defense and longevity influence the game more than Barkley's explosion IMHO.


damn I forgot Shaq, the force of nature, hes got to be included here somehow.....

Tough to compare Pierce and West; different eras, different styles of play.  Both have certainly earned their place in the "Top 100 All Time" discussion.  Top 50 could possibly even do.

On the best ever lists popping up, I think they're like candy.  No real nutritional value, but completely impossible to pass up.  So, since I can't ever resist...

Spikes's list...

1. Russell
2. Chamberlain
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Jordan
6. Baylor
7. West
8. Pettit
9. Cousy
10. Havlicek

Cowens' list...

1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Jordan
4. Kareem/Wilt
5. Olajuwon
6. Magic
7. Duncan
8. Havlicek
9. West/Robertson
10. Garnett

My list...*

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Jabbar
4. Wilt
5. Robertson
6. Baylor
7. Magic
8. Cousy
9. Bird
10. Pettit/Malone (tie)

If you include college careers, I think Jabbar moves to greatest ever, but that's a whole different list.

* Subject to change the next time I think about it (I will have changed it by the time I hit Send).

NYCelt wrote:Tough to compare Pierce and West; different eras, different styles of play.  Both have certainly earned their place in the "Top 100 All Time" discussion.  Top 50 could possibly even do.

On the best ever lists popping up, I think they're like candy.  No real nutritional value, but completely impossible to pass up.  So, since I can't ever resist...

Spikes's list...

1. Russell
2. Chamberlain
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Jordan
6. Baylor
7. West
8. Pettit
9. Cousy
10. Havlicek

Cowen's list...

1. Russell
2. Bird
3. Jordan
4. Kareem/Wilt
5. Olajuwon
6. Magic
7. Duncan
8. Havlicek
9. West/Robertson
10. Garnett

My list...*

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Jabbar
4. Wilt
5. Robertson
6. Baylor
7. Magic
8. Bird
9. Cousy
10. Pettit/Malone (tie)

If you include college careers, I think Jabbar moves to greatest ever, but that's a whole different list.

* Subject to change the next time I think about it (I will have changed it by the time I hit Send).

NYCelt,

You think Cousy and Malone were better players then Duncan, LeBron, Shaq and Kobe?

TJ,

Better than Shaq, yes.

Duncan, Kobe and LeBron are still playing, so I'm treating that like the record is still being written.  Too soon to list them for me until I see where they fall.  I expect we'll see LeBron in the top three argument before he's done.  I'm betting Kobe goes top 10, maybe at 10, but not above Cousy (not on my list anyway), not sure about Duncan.

Of the ones I list, the only ones I feel I may have included while they were active would be Jabbar, Jordan, and Russ (Robertson's close). Maybe not even all three of them.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:TJ,

Better than Shaq, yes.

Duncan, Kobe and LeBron are still playing, so I'm treating that like the record is still being written.  Too soon to list them for me until I see where they fall.  I expect we'll see LeBron in the top three argument before he's done.  I'm betting Kobe goes top 10, maybe at 10, but not above Cousy, not sure about Duncan.

Of the ones I list, the only ones I feel I may have included while they were active would be Jabbar, Jordan, and Russ (Robertson's close). Maybe not even all three of them.

Regards

Very fair answer NYCelt.

TJ,

See my edit, where I elaborated further as you responded.

As I said, give me a while and I'll change my mind some more! I think these GOAT lists, in any sport, are a lot of fun although completely subjective. I think they're great for debate.

I was waiting for you to count the number of Lakers on my list, so I could give you a tough time and explain that Kobe can't get on it, since there are too many Lakers already.

Regards

NYCelt,

I am not saying that Kobe has to be listed at 9 or 10.
I just think he was a better all around player then Cousy or Malone.
Malone, probably benefitted more then anyone in NBA history by having a great pass first point guard, who set him up with the ball at the right time and place.
Kobe's point guard partners have pretty much been average at best or have sucked.
I really don't know much at all about Pettit.

I will always wonder how people can evaluate the true value of a guy like Cousy without having seen one minute of his performance on a live basis.  Selective newsreels don't count.  What counts are things like: the primitive atmosphere surrounding the game back then; the lengths he had to go to in order to carry the team (before Russell) AND the league on his back; the uncanny deftness with which he routinely distributed the ball and enabled teammates in transition and the half court, IN ADDITION to the few gyrations they elect to feature on grainy video; the amazing creativity he displayed every single year of his career; his psychological approach to the game which (to my knowledge) has been approached only by that of Russell; the fact that he (with the imprimatur of Red Auerbach) introduced a whole new system of play to the NBA and orchestrated it so successfully that—although copied widely—it has never been duplicated since (in my opinion).

I'm sure that Shaq contributed much more than Cousy.  That's what's called a weighty decision.  Is there a Museum of Blubber?

I have to go now.  I'm busily writing a discourse on who was greater: Noah or Moses.  There's no film, but I've heard there are these marked-up rocks........

Sam

I think I'm one old timer that is qualified to comment about the Cousy years of the 50's and early 60's.

It is my opinion, that at best, the Cousy of the those early years would have had very little chance of making an nba roster from about 1980"s on.

swish

swish with all due respect, how old are you?

cowens

I'll be 83 next april.

swish

Anyone's entitled to an opinion on Cousy, and all opinions should be respected.  I certainly don't feel that simply having been around back then remotely begins to establish my credentials for evaluation of players or teams of that period.  Having brought to bear an extremely analytical mentality to rooting for the Celtics from the day Cousy joined them, I've always tried to support my opinions on The Cooz, as well as other players and teams of that era and since, with factual, observational and analytical evidence rather than simply stating my opinions as fact.  I'd be most interested in learning which of the assertions about Cousy in my previous post would warrant disagreement from others who were alive back then—and on what grounds.

Sam

sam wrote:I will always wonder how people can evaluate the true value of a guy like Cousy without having seen one minute of his performance on a live basis.  Selective newsreels don't count.  What counts are things like: the primitive atmosphere surrounding the game back then; the lengths he had to go to in order to carry the team (before Russell) AND the league on his back; the uncanny deftness with which he routinely distributed the ball and enabled teammates in transition and the half court, IN ADDITION to the few gyrations they elect to feature on grainy video; the amazing creativity he displayed every single year of his career; his psychological approach to the game which (to my knowledge) has been approached only by that of Russell; the fact that he (with the imprimatur of Red Auerbach) introduced a whole new system of play to the NBA and orchestrated it so successfully that—although copied widely—it has never been duplicated since (in my opinion).

I'm sure that Shaq contributed much more than Cousy.  That's what's called a weighty decision.  Is there a Museum of Blubber?

I have to go now.  I'm busily writing a discourse on who was greater: Noah or Moses.  There's no film, but I've heard there are these marked-up rocks........

Sam

Sam,

I'm actually too young too have seen, or at least remember anything of Cousy other than his curtain call in '69-'70, and too young to remember anything of Pettit.  I did see the last few years of Russell.

I think, however, it's not only fair but necessary for fans of any given sport to evaluate the place and performance of past greats.  As students of the game you depend on stories passed down from those that were there and written accounts.  You make your judgement based on any and all reliable information you can gather.  If not, if fans and students of the games we enjoy fail to do this, then great players from the past fade into nothing as time goes on.

I'm enough of a fan and student to know that Cousy made the style of guard play we now call point guard popular, but he didn't originate it as he's often credited with; the first true point guard was actually Slater Martin of the Minneapolis Lakers.  Cousy, did however, expand the use of offensive strategy from that position and helped it evolve into the modern style of play.  Although I never watched him I know that Babe Ruth was not some fat out of shape slug who could only swing for the fences, but rather built like a barrel-chested linebacker.  Ruth didn't actually get heavier through the middle until the end of his career.  He had possibly the fastest hands through the strike zone of anyone other than perhaps Ted Williams, who I didn't see either, but know to have had the best pure swing ever, along with Ken Griffey, Jr.  Despite being too young to remember anything of Jim Brown other than his retirement, I do know that although all that's said of him is that he was a punishing runner, he was also a gifted receiver with great hands who was actually a dangerous all-purpose back, long before that was considered a skill of significant importance.

If we rule out the ability of those even younger than me to judge the NBA's greatest from the past, for instance, the all time top 5 list reads something like James, Bryant, Jordan, Shaq and Chris Paul.

I enjoyed writing this because now that I'm in my mid-50's, I got to say "I'm too young" several times!  So thank you for giving me a topic I could debate and defend based on my not being old enough.

Regards

Sam; I missed your post above as I was writing mine, but thank you again for allowing me the chance to say "I'm too young."

swish wrote:cowens

I'll be 83 next april.

swish

how would Russell do today?

NTCelt,

Actually, Slater Martin was not the first notable "1" in NBA history.  That honor belonged to Bob Davies, who entered the league a year earlier than Martin and led the league in assists in his very first season.  He also out-assisted Martin in career assists per game and per 36 minutes.  He also is credited with being the first to use the behind-the-back dribble.  Slater Martin was more of a defensive guard, who arguably gave Cousy the most trouble of any opponent.

Hand-me-down knowledge of an old-time star in any sport is certainly sufficient to gain a very general idea of the magnitude of his stardom.  I'm not sure it qualifies as a foundation for something as ambitious and ostensibly specific as a ranking of the top 10 players on the basis of largely subjective ground rules that can be altered from guesser to guesser..

But to each his own, and top 10 lists always seem to spark a lot of discussion, which a board like this is all about.

Unfortunately, the words "I'm too young" deserted my personal lexicon decades ago.

Now you're really talking when you mention Jim Brown.  Third and seven?  No problem.  Just give the ball to Jim behind the two pulling guards, Wooten and Hickerson, and watch!  He'd start out as though is feet were in cement, as he surveyed the possibilities.  Then he'd take a couple of tentative steps and then EXPLODE just before hitting the line.  Defensive players would bounce off him; and, more often than not, he'd drag two or three defenders the last five to ten yards.

Jim Brown actually got me into trouble in the Army.  He used to half-lope, half-trudge back to the huddle after a pley.  That looked good to me, so I adopted this running style of half-loping, half-trudging until the time came to explode.  During one training exercise, a captain really got on me for dogging it, and he demanded that I report to him at the end of the day.  When I did, he started to lay me out some more, but I said, "I'm sorry, sir, but it's partially your fault."  That stopped him momentarily, and he asked why—obviously thinking, "This ought to be good."

So I said, "You attended Syracuse University, right?"  "Yes."  And do you, as a good alumnus, contribute to support Syracuse?"  "Not that it's any of your business, but yes I do."  So you supported Jim Brown when he was at Syracuse, and it was his style I was copying when I was running."

Long silence.  Fortunately, he had a very good sense of humor.  Finally he chuckled and said, "Well you may be a slow runner, but you're a fast thinker."  He let me go, and we actually became friendly over time; and he later picked me to run the hurdles in our Battalion "Olympics."  Low hurdles, fortunately.

if I hadn't personally seen Jim Brown in action, I might be in an Army prison to this day for insubordination.  Proof enough for me that it pays to be old.

Sam

NYCelt

I find it odd you have Petit on your list after reading you never saw him play, while I have seen his stats and know he was best player on a team that defeated the Russell Celtics, I don't see how you can include him....but thats just me.

FYI I happened to be in Springfield for Birds induction into the HoF and the gigantic Wilt Chamberlain walked right by me on his way to be interviewed....Its no exageration as to why so many people always thought Wilt could still play, he looked great!! As I was wondering why Wilt was there, some fan told me he was there because he was honoring his coach Alex Hanumn, who was also being inducted and that Hanumn coached both the only 2 teams that beat the Celtics during their 13 year run. If not for Hanumn coaching and Petit and Wilt that Celtic team might have won 13 in a row!!!

cow